Musings and Sometimes Rants about the non-equal status of Fathers in Family Law and Parenting. Additionally periodic comparisons to the treatment of men compared to women in other areas including health care.

In October 2007 eleven-month-old Australian child Panagiotis Laskos was abducted from Australia to Poland by his mother, Malgorzata Muchowska.

The child’s father, Sydney restaurateur Dimitrios Laskos, immediately lodged an application for Panagiotis to be returned to Australia under the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

A court-ordered psychiatric assessment in Poland concluded that Panagiotis should be returned to Australia as soon as possible.

After losing his case at a Polish local court because the mother did not want to return to Australia – which is not a legitimate reason for refusal under the provisions of the Hague Convention - Mr Laskos appealed to the Polish High Court.

Last week he was told the Polish High Court refused to return Panagiotis to Australia as required under the Hague Convention. The reasons given were:

1) The child doesn't speak English. This is not a legitimate reason under the provisions of the Hague Convention.

2) The child no longer knows his father. This is not a legitimate reason under the provisions of the Hague Convention.

3) The father lied to the court about his property holdings in Sydney & he is unreliable. This is not relevant under the provisions of the Hague Convention.

Mr Laskos said, “The court asked me for proof that I owned property in Australia and I agreed to provide this information even though it wasn't relevant to the case. I own a very successful restaurant in Sydney as well as a take-away food business. How can they say I am not reliable!?”

A spokesperson for the Coalition of Parents of Abducted Children (COPAC) said, “The Hague Convention is there to enable children who have been abducted to be reunited with their other parent as quickly as possible and to enable parenting matters to be heard in the courts within the jurisdiction of the child's country of habitual residence, which in this case is Australia”.

Mr Laskos has traveled to Poland three times to see his son.

He said, “My wife refused to let me see Panagiotis during the first visit. During the second visit I was only permitted to see him for a short time under the supervision of armed police”. His wife wanted the same condition imposed during his third visit.

Mr Laskos said, “I have no criminal record and have never done anything wrong. Why am I being treated like a criminal when it is my wife who has abducted an Australian Citizen?” The COPAC spokesperson said, “International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) is not a crime in Australia. This means Mr Laskos has no further legal avenues available to him within Australia such as asking the Australian Government to seek an extradition order. He has also exhausted all legal avenues in Poland”.

“This case highlights the high level of non-compliance many countries display by ignoring their legal obligations under the Hague Convention, as well gaps in Australian legislation” said the spokesperson.

Mr Laskos is now seeking the help of the Australian Government. He wants them to ask the Polish Government to overturn the decision of the Polish High Court on the grounds that their decision is based on reasons that are not valid under the provisions of the Hague Convention.

The spokesperson said, “This decision of the Polish High Court is a travesty of international justice and a blatant breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Australian child is now being held captive within Poland with the full support of the Polish legal system”.

He added, “If this decision is not overturned it will send a message to parental child abductors around the world that all they have to do is get to another country with the child and use that country’s legal system to get what they want”.

Mr Laskos is also exploring the possibility of mounting a case against the Polish Government through the European Court of Human Rights.

About Me

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

Feminism On Trial Powered By Ringsurf

Counting 1 - 2 - 3

Leading causes of Injury to Women 2006

In 2006, unintentional falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injury among women of every age group, and rates generally increased with age. Women aged 65 years and older had the highest rate of injury due to unintentional falls (59.7 per 1,000 women), while slightly more than 19 per 1,000 women aged 18–34 and 35–44 years experienced fall-related injuries. Unintentional injuries sustained as motor vehicle occupants were the second leading cause of injury among 18- to 34-year-olds (18.7 per 1,000), while unintentional overexertion was the second leading cause of injury among women aged 35–44 and 45–64 years (13.7 and 9.3 per 1,000, respectively). Among women aged 65 years and older, being unintentionally struck by or against an object was the second leading cause of injury (5.7 per 1,000).

Injury related Emergency Department Visits

Unintentional and intentional injuries each represented a higher proportion of emergency department (ED) visits for men than women in 2005. Among women and men aged 18 years and older, unintentional injuries accounted for 19.9 and 27.5 percent of ED visits, respectively, while intentional injuries, or assault, represented 1.4 and 2.7 percent of visits, respectively. Among both women and men, unintentional injury accounted for a higher percentage of ED visits among those living in non-metropolitan areas, while adults living in metropolitan areas had a slightly higher percentage of ED visits due to intentional injury.